Glen
Moderator
Thanks!
Please do, otherwise this is just public monologue!
Doubt the names will change, but I would be very interested to hear what alternatives you would have considered, so please share!
Thanks!
Please do, otherwise this is just public monologue!
Doubt the names will change, but I would be very interested to hear what alternatives you would have considered, so please share!
Glen
Moderator
That's about right. ITTL it actually has a slightly higher population (much of that increase Native American in nature), but is close enough to the 50,000 per representative number to rate becoming a state ITTL. It is a rugged but beautiful land of farms, ranches, many of them native settlements, though also the more hardy of settlers. The people of Shulze are isolated, left alone, and like it that way, I imagine.
From "The Wyoming Constitutional Convention and Adoption of Wyoming’s Constitution, 1889, and the Aftermath
By Phil Roberts, University of Wyoming Department of History"
"Statehood had proponents in Wyoming as early as 1869, soon after the territory was established. Realistically, however, the disappointingly slow population growth was seen as hindering advancement to statehood. In the late 1880s, statehood efforts enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Under Congress' commonly accepted rules dating back to the Northwest Ordinance, a territory had to count a population of at least 60,000 in order to take the first qualifying step toward statehood. Territorial Gov. Thomas Moonlight, a Democrat who had supported statehood when Cleveland was President but opposed it after Harrison’s election in November, 1888, reported to the Secretary of the Interior in December 1888 that Wyoming had no more than 55,500 people. (As later census figures revealed, his estimate was surprisingly accurate)."
Where is the 50,000 per representative from for TTL?
And what is the Capital of Shulze (and does that location have a name iOTL?
naraht, the 50,000 mark per rep was a suggestion from Madison at the Constitutional Convention (they settled on 30,000 partly cuz that was the population of Delaware!). This TL has a POD before even 1775. There is no NW Ordinance as we know it.
That said... I have long been skeptical of a couple statehood dates in this TL, especially with Jacques and Lakota. Like OTL wouldn't the population requirement creep upwards over time? Otherwise you either have states extremely over represented in Congress, or 2000 members in the House by 1901!
Though that would be kinda cool..
That said... I have long been skeptical of a couple statehood dates in this TL, especially with Jacques and Lakota. Like OTL wouldn't the population requirement creep upwards over time? Otherwise you either have states extremely over represented in Congress, or 2000 members in the House by 1901!
Though that would be kinda cool..
Glen
Moderator
naraht, the 50,000 mark per rep was a suggestion from Madison at the Constitutional Convention (they settled on 30,000 partly cuz that was the population of Delaware!). This TL has a POD before even 1775. There is no NW Ordinance as we know it.
That said... I have long been skeptical of a couple statehood dates in this TL, especially with Jacques and Lakota. Like OTL wouldn't the population requirement creep upwards over time? Otherwise you either have states extremely over represented in Congress, or 2000 members in the House by 1901!
As you can see, the 50,000 number comes from as far back as a 2010 update on the formation of TTL's Constitution. As can also be seen, it is not a minimum, but rather allows for lower numbers, just rounding up. Therefore also, states with small populations won't cause a boom in Assemblymen for other states, given that it isn't taking the smallest population and setting that as equaling one Assemblyman.
I bet the NY senators thoroughly look down their noses at the Schulze etc senators though, "I got five times more votes than your entire state population." .
Also think of recently the minor controversy over the Gun bill: the Dem senators that voted against represented about 2% of the population. Yes that's precisely what the senate was designed for, but...
ITTL there's even more room for those situations some day. Just an interesting thought.
And... just how Big is the Assembly by 1901? That could be an interesting topic if it's grown to a size larger than OTL's current House.
.Also think of recently the minor controversy over the Gun bill: the Dem senators that voted against represented about 2% of the population. Yes that's precisely what the senate was designed for, but...
ITTL there's even more room for those situations some day. Just an interesting thought.
And... just how Big is the Assembly by 1901? That could be an interesting topic if it's grown to a size larger than OTL's current House.
Glen
Moderator
I bet the NY senators thoroughly look down their noses at the Schulze etc senators though, "I got five times more votes than your entire state population."
Yes, because New York Senators are always looking down their noses at Wyoming Senators IOTL...oh wait, no they are not, because EACH SENATOR'S VOTE COUNTS THE SAME. Actually, the opposite argument applies here - the Shulze voter actually has more clout in the Senate than a New York voter since they don't have as many constituents they have to share the Senator with. Granted, the big states control the Assembly (IF they vote as a block, which is by no means assured).
No buts - the bicameral house was precisely designed so that populous states could not ride roughshod over small population states.
True, but that is for the future. We have much greater size descrepancies IOTL now compared to any ITTL in 1901 for example. But in time, we shall see....
Have to check on that. Eventually it will be raised as an issue, just as it was IOTL. Now, I can tell you the size of the Senate after 1905 - 126 Senators - yes, it is already larger than our own IOTL, since each state gets THREE senators, not Two.
The capital of the State of Shulze is Juniper. Juniper grew up around the iron foundry that was developed there given its opportune position roughly equidistant from plentiful iron and coal deposits, and was named for the ubiquitous Juniper trees that grow in the area.
Pretty cool. Might Juniper possibly be larger than OTL's *Cedar City, by any stretch?
Glen
Moderator
Pretty cool. Might Juniper possibly be larger than OTL's *Cedar City, by any stretch?
Perhaps a little - it likely is the St. George of TTL.
Pretty cool. Might Juniper possibly be larger than OTL's *Cedar City, by any stretch?
Perhaps a little - it likely is the St. George of TTL.
Personally I can see it being even larger than OTLs St. George. A population slightly above 100,000 wouldn't be out of the question. Aside from the good mining location, I t would also be the only large border town in the west before getting to California, and if the city plays its cards right it can easily adapt to tourism. It would be after all the closest city to the American side of the Grand Canyon, and close enough to Monument valley to attract tourism. Place a 5 star ski resort close to it in the later half of the 20th century and you can have a very neat little-big city.
Glen
Moderator
Later in the 20th century, this all is likely to be true. It is more in the 1905 period I was thinking it would be more modest.
It is a bit of a bulge, isn't it. I am certain there are some rude jokes ITTL about that....
On the other hand, I believe that in fact the bulge is easier to administer than the current border division. Certainly easier when it comes to interstate water rights, which is kinda a big deal in that part of the world.
I am glad you like it, and yes, there is some precedent for it. Basically they ran out of non-controversial presidential names, and the older naming systems were getting harder for that region to apply, thus someone thought to come up with a different (or perhaps retro) way of doing things.
Note that Idaho and Wyoming are very low probability state names in most timelines. Montana moderately so.
Ah, but what else would they do. It is a moral compromise struck by the founding fathers themselves, and quite frankly no one could come up with anything better that still allowed for American Manifest Destiny.
Well, yes and no. They aren't fully throwbacks - cultural creep is happening up there, mostly through the Francophone north, but this will be synthesis and evolution rather than replacement. More in future...
Convergenists!
Not anymore - thanks to Puerto Rico, we have 51 states
Of course, we'll happily have more than that in the CSA
So, even TTL's North America we will have its Mounties (Montium territory).
I can see people living in Pratorum being derogatorily called Prattlers, even if they don't talk a lot. While people in Shulze I could see being called Shellies.
Glen
Moderator
Not anymore - thanks to Puerto Rico, we have 51 states
Of course, we'll happily have more than that in the CSA
Funny, very funny....
JJohnson
Banned
Aaaaaah, the map's been updated finally!
Also a nice touch on having a new naming scheme pop up for states. Or perhaps re-emerging considering the names of most of the original colonies.
I am also surprised even at the dawn of the 20th century Amerindian tribes are being encouraged to assimilate or move up north. If anything, that's an encouraging thing to know traditional tribal ways and lifestyles can still continue even to what will presumably be TTL's present day.
I agree with Thekingsguard on a need for fifty states, heh heh.
The states are kind of odd. Do they have enough land and resources to support their populations? Why did this version of the US not adopt Jefferson's more equal states, which for us, gave us rows of states of 3° or 4° tall and 7° in width? (Washington, Oregon, the plains states, etc.)
very interesting to see some growth out in my neck of the woods. interesting names, though it seems that the jeffersonian designation is following me, I used to live in OTL's "jefferson state" area. and, like everyone else, I must compliment you on how those western states look like eastern states.
this conversation on schulze is very stimulating, what's most shocking to me is that I only just now noticed that the map you're using has lake powell on it. as to population and population centers, it is bound to be one empty mother of a state, but very pretty nonetheless, it does contain most of utah's national parks. and, except for situations like juniper, where a place is particularly suited to having a city on it, I don't see why most of the state's towns would be in the same places or have the same names, the same goes for jefferson. practically every settlement in this region has mormonism somewhere behind its creation. st george, las vegas and ely, are supposed to have begun as mormon settlements, and they probably woudn't be there if not for the church's direction. salt lake as well, without brigham young saying there needed to be a city here, the salt lake valley is probably farmland with a copper mining town on one edge, there's probably a town bulit around the silver in *park city, and there's liable to be an important settlement in the cache valley, north of salt lake, it's an old crossroads and meeting place from probably before europeans first entered the region.
this conversation on schulze is very stimulating, what's most shocking to me is that I only just now noticed that the map you're using has lake powell on it
. as to population and population centers, it is bound to be one empty mother of a state, but very pretty nonetheless, it does contain most of utah's national parks. and, except for situations like juniper, where a place is particularly suited to having a city on it, I don't see why most of the state's towns would be in the same places or have the same names, the same goes for jefferson. practically every settlement in this region has mormonism somewhere behind its creation. st george, las vegas and ely, are supposed to have begun as mormon settlements, and they probably woudn't be there if not for the church's direction. salt lake as well, without brigham young saying there needed to be a city here, the salt lake valley is probably farmland with a copper mining town on one edge, there's probably a town bulit around the silver in *park city, and there's liable to be an important settlement in the cache valley, north of salt lake, it's an old crossroads and meeting place from probably before europeans first entered the region.
Glen
Moderator
Well, to the eye of someone from OTL, sure!
Do they have enough land and resources to support their populations?[/QUOTE]
In terms of size and land, they are not so terribly different from OTL, even if they aren't perfect squares.
First, a degree difference in height is actually a significant difference - and having said that the western states overall try to approximate size but while taking into account the natural landmarks of the region. Why didn't they adopt Jefferson's plan? Because ITTL it was felt to be a good general guide, but that it shouldn't be handcuffs. I would argue that the real difference here is that the cartographers weren't so in love with straight lines that have no real meaning as in OTL (though they occasionally fall prey to it as well).